Posted on 01/10/2012 4:26:11 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Close up of J-10B and J-20 AESA set?
I stumbled across an image of what is supposedly the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the J-10B and J-20 at the Asian Defence News site. I have no idea as to the image's provenance (it is very likely a model), but a similar set was photographed on a J-10B test aircraft at Chengdu last year (below).
The structure around the radar suggests this is the mounting for the J-10. The real radar probably has several more boxes - note the amount of fuselage space occupied by the guts of Raytheon's APG-79 AESA set for the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet (below).
The radar is also not hinged. Representatives of Eurofighter and Gripen NG like to talk about how the AESA mounts on their aircraft can swing left or right. They claim this improves the set's field of regard, and is an advantage over the fixed mounts on aircraft such as the Super Hornet and Rafale. A two ship formation with hinged AESAs can scan further to the left and right, they say, and it improves an aircraft's ability's to 'look sideways' over borders (or enemy lines).
“A two ship formation with hinged AESAs can scan further to the left and right, they say, and it improves an aircraft’s ability’s to ‘look sideways’ over borders (or enemy lines).”
So they say (claim)...
Proof will be in the puddin’...
I think we really need to sweat this if they navalize this aircraft...pffffft, not really...;-)
If you are talking of navalising the J-10, that’s not really much to sweat about. On the other hand, it would take at least close to a decade for them to put the J-20 into squadron service into the air force, so a naval variant would be farther off.
Yes, on paper. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. It also results in some disadvantages too. It adds weight, takes up space. It adds a mechanical wear item and additional maintenance requirements. It adds a little inaccuracy due to lash/play in the mounts and calibration errors in the antenna position encoders. It complicates the software, potentially introducing bugs, requiring more cpu power, or slowing updates. (small effects, but probably measurable) It takes away from antenna element space - the movable one has to be slightly smaller to give it clearance, potentially reducing antenna accuracy and power.
Many of these are admittedly very small effects. However, I thought the whole idea of AESA was to get away from some of these...
“I stumbled across”
I like that, “stumbled across”. Just how large a hole did you dig before “stumbling across”? lol
I understand little of your posts, but I sure do enjoy them. Thank you.
That’s not my statement. It’s of the blog-writer, Greg Waldron
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
